Are gender quota laws the only way to reach gender parity in politics?

In 1997 Venezuela adopted quota laws in which 30% of lower and upper legislative chambers had to be women representatives. (Schwindt-Bayer, 2009, p.8).

Alba Carosio, co-founder and director of the Center for Women’s Studies in Venezuela, argues that, there is a logical theory behind gender parity in politics in which half the population is composed of women thus half the decision making power should be controlled by women (Martinez, 2010, p.74). This was the logic supporting women’s demands for political inclusion. In response to this theory and women’s demands for representation, quota laws were created. In the 1990s, quota laws were made in Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil among other countries in Latin America. In 1991, Argentina was the first to adopt a quota law in the lower legislative chamber (Schwindt-Bayer, 2009, Table 1). These quotas expanded into the upper levels of the legislative chambers and were implemented in a domino effect all over Latin America and the world.

Feminists argued that working within the state organization for change towards gender equality was not the only route to be pursued. By also working outside the current power structures and creating new ones, they argued women would be able to more effectively push for their demands. Herrera (2010) believed “As long as we continue working from the margins, unable to form a critical mass, we will remain a minority, used either to fulfill the diversity quotas or to serve as decorative objects” (p.303). Here Herrera is stating the need for mass mobilization by women in addition to advocating for substantive policy changes. 

Quota laws can be seen as an example of women being ‘decorative objects’, the presence of gender inclusive language in the law is an example of women working within the state apparatus to make legitimate changes in women’s lives. Quota laws are seen by some as an ineffective way to address gender inequality in politics. Others argue that quota laws are a way to increase the presence of women in political decision making and potentially increase the influence of feminists in politics.

What do quota laws really achieve? Is affirmative action in this way an efficient tool in lessening the gender gap in politics?

While quota laws have helped to increase women’s involvement in political decision-making, separate women’s organizations can be utilized as well. Venezuela’s women’s research centers (CEM) and women’s NGOs assisted in the 1999 constitution revisions. The constitution of Venezuela is a key component in women’s struggle for equality. By creating a state standard upheld by the President himself, the objectives of gender equality will continue to reach lower levels of society. 

The answer to the above question is a grey one. Public policy is not the only route for women’s equality initiatives. In addition, and perhaps simultaneously, women in Venezuela have been working from the bottom up to meet the state in the middle. The masses of women have learned to read and write, to run a business, to organize and lobby against the state until their demands have been met. Without the push from below and the support from above, women’s mobilization in Venezuela would not have been as successful as it has been.

In 1999, Venezuela's gender quota laws were rescinded. Venezuela's case proves that quota laws or affirmative action measures are not the only means of creating gender equality in political decision making processes. 

Table of Gender Quota Laws for the Legislative Branch in Latin America

Country	Chamber	Year Created
Argentina	Lower	1991
Bolivia	Lower & Upper	1997
Brazil	Lower	1997
Costa Rica	Unicameral	1996
Dominican Republic	Lower	1997
Ecuador	Unicameral	1997
Guyana	Unicameral	2000
Honduras	Unicameral	2000
Mexico	Lower & Upper	2002
Panama	Unicameral	1997
Paraguay	Lower & Upper	1996
Peru	Unicameral	1997
Venezuela	Lower & Upper	1997

Sources: (Schwindt-Bayer, 2009, p.8).

History of Women in Venezuela

Table of the History of Venezuela from the 1950s-2000s in regards to the political state, economy, and women’s mobilization

Decade	Politics	Economy	Women’s Mobilization
1950s	Dictatorship	Increased oil revenues funded infrastructure projects. Limited government spending on social services.	Cross-class mobilization. Demands for democracy.
1960s	Democracy	Increased government spending on social services to poor populations. The creation of OPEC. Economic growth at 5.5 % annually.	De-mobilization, emergence of multiple political parties.
1970s	Democracy	Oil boom in world, SELA created, increase in employment percentage.	Cross-class mobilization. Demands for equality in home and domestic violence laws.
1980s	Neoliberalism	World Economic Crisis, oil bust. Unemployment at 20%.	De-mobilization.
1990s	Neoliberalism and beginning of transformation to Socialism.	Foreign debt at an all time high, increased poverty and decline in social services to people. IMF Structural Readjustment programs.	Cross-class mobilization. Demands for social services. Political quota laws implemented.
2000s	Transition to Socialism	Economy struggling, yet increase in state funded social services to people.	Cross-class mobilization. Demands for political inclusion and gender inclusiveness.
2010	Twenty-first Century Socialism	Economy still struggling. New social missions emerge.	Cross-class mobilization. Women are empowered by social missions, new demands for gender sensitivity in media and education.

Sources: (Timeline Venezuela, 2012), (Venezuela Country Studies, 1990), (World Economic Outlook Database, 2006), (The World Factbook, 2012), (Venezuela’s Naitonal Statistics Institute, 2006).

Political Graffiti

“A trench of ideas is bigger than a trench of stones.” Jose Marti (Cuban Revolutionary Hero)

This was quoted by a Venezuelan community radio station coordinator in the beautiful countryside of Sanare. Here we see images of Simon Bolivar, Che Guevara, and Hugo Chavez. These are painted murals throughout the country of national hero’s and icons for the unification of the Latin American countries in Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution. 

                                                                          Sanare

Some of these murals are painted by independent artists, but majority are painted by Chavistas and government sponsored “mural committees” that paint the country red. 

While Venezuela is no exception to the use of graffiti, other countries like Mexico, Columbia, and Argentina have a history of this sort of artistic expression. It is no doubt part of a greater scheme; while some part of it is owned by the grassroots and marginalized population and used as an outlet of opinion. There is this other wave of political graffiti used to help create the idea of a nation-state. These images seen across Venezuela are examples of the symbolism used to put a face on democracy. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words; what are these images saying to the people? Are they really by the people for the people? Has the government tapped into the underground culture and created an artistic political expression?

                                                                      Sanare

There is a difference of course between the image of Che, Bolivar, and Chavez; yet how often do we hear Chavez quoting these iconic heroes? "The most perfect system of government is the one which produces the greatest possible happiness...” -Simon Bolivar. I heard this quote many times over from different people while interviewing radio stations, religious organizations, government workers...the heroes are engrained in Venezuelan history and without them there could not have been a revolution...right?

                                                                    Barquisimeto

                                                       Caracas- In favor of Opposition

Americans in a Crossfire

Americans in a Crossfire

On August 12, 2012 a group of Americans and Canadians walk out of the Caracas Metro station to a downtown area prepared for a political rally in support of the opposition Presidential candidate, Henrique Capriles. 

As we walk off the escalator we somehow enter a crossfire between Chavez supporters and Capriles supporters yelling inaudible “boo’s” and “chants” at each other, obviously trying to out shout the other. There is a sense of tension between the two groups and I start to feel nervous about being in the middle. Our translator, Leo Lameda, initiates conversation with a Chavez supporter whom was also his high school history teacher, Lobeila Escobar. She talks about media manipulation especially U.S. media in which they demonize Chavez and hype up the violence in Venezuela. She has been an active Chavez supporter for years and believes he will be elected President again for a third six year term this October. We migrate around her as onlookers join our circle in order to hear her voice.

A local student camera crew join us and want to ask us, the Americans, about our experience here and opinions on the current political situation in Venezuela. A man with a Capriles flag steps in front of a female Chavez supporter chanting louder and louder by the second. There’s a moment of hostility as he makes his way to the ‘right’ side of the rally and political spectrum. She stands proudly on the left and as the next metro full of passengers disembarks into our space, shouts from both sides guide the passengers to the proper position. 

We interview a couple Capriles supporters on the outer skirts of the rally. The older man’s reference to anti-semitism could be related to the fact that Capriles has a Jewish ancestry. The younger woman references the New Organic Law of Civil Penalties which states: “In Venezuela, in January 2012, a new Organic Law against Terrorism and Organized Delinquency was adopted by Congress, but has not yet been signed into law by the President. The law establishes a broad definition of “terrorist acts” that may apply to legitimate acts of social protest or dissidence. It also places NGOs under the permanent surveillance of a State organ and imposes restrictions on foreign funding.” -United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 4/25/2012 http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=article_s&id_article=3853 

It’s interesting to note that this law imposes restrictions on foreign funding, which suggests an anti-U.S. electoral endorsement of any kind for any candidates in Venezuela.  Is this a bad thing? How much endorsements from corporations does our U.S. candidates receive? The young woman’s insinuation of Chavez promoting violence could be linked to the division among Venezuelans. And how Venezuela has been undergoing a class struggle due to government reforms against privatization and a transition to a socialist economy. Through these measures redistribution of wealth and high influence jobs have caused the wealthy and middle class to lose previous privileges such as land and corporate investment.